You either: 1. Don't have enough memory installed on your system 2. Installed way too many plugins 3. Installed one plugin with reeeeally shitty memory management
Does a dime-sized wearable require that much interaction? It seems like the display would be so small that it wouldn't have very many use cases. If you want a lot of interaction, you probably also want a bigger screen. Why not something forearm-sized?
Wow. Well, thanks for proving me wrong. I can see now that you are nothing but a troll. How does that link in any way address the discussion here?
Maybe your little web admin world doesn't require the same engineering discipline but I can guarantee that any software project with hundreds of developers and life-threatening security implications do require these processes.
I'm glad that you have never been hired to be a part of one of these projects.
Looking back through your comment history, you don't appear to be a troll so there may have been a point somewhere in your curt and extremely rude reply. Care to elaborate?
I agree with everything in the parent post but I think the last paragraph needs some clarification. You do not need to buy a tool for process development, but some tools will be required for the implementation of those processes. For example, almost all software projects will need tools for change tracking and version control processes.
I work in a similar environment: CMMI level 5 using DOORS (requirements management), ClearQuest (bug/change tracking), and ClearCase (code versioning). Personally, I don't like any of these tools. They're slow, expensive, and generally a pain to use but they get the job done. There are open source alternatives and, although I have not used these myself, I hear they are faster, easier to use, and cheaper (free). For code version control there is Git, CVS, SVN, etc. For change tracking: bugzilla. For requirements management, any database software should do. Our process documentation is written in Word documents and posted to an internal website.
A Moon colony would only suck slightly less, because, presumably, we'd ship air and food and something to protect you from cosmic rays, solar flares, and the vacuum of space.
The point of building a colony on the moon is to learn how to survive away from Earth using only local resources. The goal is to make the colony self-sustainable, not to be completely dependent on Earth for all eternity.
But what's the point? Just so you don't have to live here?
The GP has a good point, albeit poorly stated. Microsoft has the resources to fix these problems quickly, they simply choose not to because fixing their past mistakes would take time away from producing their next cash cow. No, they don't need to fully patch the problem immediately. But they do need to pass the information about the vulnerability along to anyone that may be using a system that is affected by it. And if they care about their customers at all, Microsoft should also provide a method to temporarily prevent an attacker from using that vulnerability against them.
You're working your ass off getting a project out the door, that new oil well needs to be drilled ASAP. A vendor of yours comes to you on Friday night with a NEW problem that they think is a big deal; apparently one of the wells that you drilled in the past has broken and is spewing thousands of gallons of oil into the ocean every day. You acknowledge their complaint, file it away and go back to working on what you were working on. Two business days later, you learn that your vendor took out ads in every major publication and website touting what an idiot you are for not "responding" to him, even though you did.
Now, before you say that's comparing apples to oranges, give it some thought. Is this hypothetical really so different from Microsoft's handling of vulnerability reports? Both problems require a prompt response because they could cost people/businesses a lot of money if the problem leads to a loss of data/resources. Both problems exist as a result of companies cutting corners. Both companies responded slowly because a prompt response would hurt their bottom line (short-term anyway).
What Microsoft should do with this and all other vulnerability reports is allocate as many resources as necessary to, at the very least, find a way for people to shore-up/disable the affected services, systems, etc. then promptly notify the world of both the problem and a temporary solution even if that temporary solution is just to turn the entire system off.
What Microsoft should not do is keep the information from the public until they release a patch. Just because one guy filed a bug report, it does not mean he is the only guy who is aware of the bug. There could be someone else who not only knows about the bug, but has already written and begun using an exploit for it.
The financial meltdown of 2008 was caused by the subprime mortgage disaster, which was directly *encouraged* by the Federal government through Fanny Mae and the "community reinvestment" requirements.
As the University of Michigan's Michael Barr points out, half of sub-prime loans came from those mortgage companies beyond the reach of CRA. A further 25 to 30 percent came from bank subsidiaries and affiliates, which come under CRA to varying degrees but not as fully as banks themselves. (With affiliates, banks can choose whether to count the loans.) Perhaps one in four sub-prime loans were made by the institutions fully governed by CRA.
Janet Yellen, president of the San Francisco Federal Reserve, offers the killer statistic: Independent mortgage companies, which are not covered by CRA, made high-priced loans at more than twice the rate of the banks and thrifts.
You're right about Fannie and Freddie. They did contribute to the problem, although the problems there were actually due to poor policies: investments in sub-prime mortgages should have been regulated, HUD's affordable housing goal increases ignored reality, etc.
I agree. One of the greatest advantages of the new system is that it increases the amount of available routes through Class A airspace (where mostly commercial airliners hang out). It does this by increasing altitude measurement accuracy and reporting frequency. This allows the FAA to cut separation distance minimums in half, doubling the number of routes through Class A airspace. It also allows direct routing (you don't have to follow airways over VORs anymore). This further increases the amount of airspace available to commercial aircraft and allows for shorter flights, which cuts the airlines' fuel costs.
With all of the advantages that this new system provides for commercial traffic, the airlines have the most to gain. Why should private pilots have to shoulder the burden of upgrading the system?
Just to clarify, most transponders in use today do transmit pressure altitude. This is required when flying into Class A, B, or C airspace or into a mode C veil (which usually surrounds Class B airports).
That's interesting. This almost sounds like a roundabout way of implementing the public option. Assuming the "uninsured fee" goes toward national health care costs, it's basically cheap health insurance for everyone.
They'll learn just how expendable they are, and how easy it is to outsource their skills from a nation of cheaper labour.
Actually, they'll see how poorly the upgrades were handled and realize it's easier to throw out the resulting monstrosity and start over than try to maintain it.
The problem with this approach is that insurance (not just health insurance, but insurance in general) is not designed to handle relatively small payments that are known to occur on a regular basis. The purpose of insurance is to guard against very expensive problems that have a low risk of occurrence. The idea is that many people pay a relatively small premium and all of that money is pooled together to pay for the small subgroup of people that are unfortunate enough to run into the problem that the insurance policy guards against.
This model breaks down when the chance of the problem occurring is very high. In the case of regular viral vaccinations, the risk of occurrence is 100%. This means that your premium would have to be equal to the cost of your vaccination plus administrative costs for the insurance policy. So you're already paying more for your vaccination just by using insurance to pay for it.
If health care prices were brought down to a reasonable level, very simple procedures like vaccinations would probably cost about as much as the co-pay that most people are already paying to their health insurance company.
This is a great example of why I think the current debate over US health care is focused on the wrong issue. The problem is not the cost of health care insurance, the problem is the cost of health care itself. Sure, there are many problems with health insurance, but the question we need to be asking is not "how do we pay for health care?" The question we need to be asking is "why is health care so expensive?"
It is ridiculous that simple things like diagnosing/curing a common disease or setting a broken bone cost as much as they do. It is even more ridiculous that these things are so expensive that we need insurance to pay for them. Bring the cost of health care down and we can save insurance for the uncommon stuff, which should bring the cost of insurance down as a result.
Even worse, maybe they like the current public perception of nuclear power. With people afraid of nuclear power, there is greater opposition when someone tries to build a new nuclear plant which could compete with their plant. Maybe, in that sort of twisted logic, they see fixing the leak as spending money to shoot themselves in the foot.
That is ridiculous for so many reasons I don't even know where to start. Engagement rings are not some sort of "un-fake-able signal of a man's seriousness". If either the man or the woman calls off the wedding for any reason, in many states, legally, the ring is returned to the man.
In some states of the United States, engagement rings are considered "conditional gifts" under the legal rules of property. This is an exception to the general rule that gifts cannot be revoked once properly given. See, for example, the case of Meyer v. Mitnick, 625 N.W.2d 136 (Michigan, 2001), whose ruling found the following reasoning persuasive: "the so-called 'modern trend' holds that because an engagement ring is an inherently conditional gift, once the engagement has been broken, the ring should be returned to the donor. Thus, the question of who broke the engagement and why, or who was 'at fault,' is irrelevant. This is the no-fault line of cases."
And some info on the history of engagement rings. Note that the rings were initially made out of iron (pretty inexpensive).
Romans used iron rings to symbolize strength and permanence, and the Greeks are credited with the initial idea to wear the ring on the fourth finger of the left hand, where the “vena amoris” or vein of love was supposed to connect to the heart.
During the ninth century, Pope Nicolas I endorsed the idea of engagement rings by making a gold ring a betrothal requirement to demonstrate the groom’s wealth and ability to care for a wife. In 1215, Pope Innocent III made a similar declaration though the rings could consist of different metals, including silver and iron, and the rings were meant to be worn during a longer engagement period.
I'll leave the part about how DeBeers controlling the resale market is good for men (or anyone) for someone else to debunk.
Slashdot Mirror
You either:
1. Don't have enough memory installed on your system
2. Installed way too many plugins
3. Installed one plugin with reeeeally shitty memory management
Does a dime-sized wearable require that much interaction? It seems like the display would be so small that it wouldn't have very many use cases. If you want a lot of interaction, you probably also want a bigger screen. Why not something forearm-sized?
Wow. Well, thanks for proving me wrong. I can see now that you are nothing but a troll. How does that link in any way address the discussion here?
Maybe your little web admin world doesn't require the same engineering discipline but I can guarantee that any software project with hundreds of developers and life-threatening security implications do require these processes.
I'm glad that you have never been hired to be a part of one of these projects.
Wow. Just... wow.
Looking back through your comment history, you don't appear to be a troll so there may have been a point somewhere in your curt and extremely rude reply. Care to elaborate?
I agree with everything in the parent post but I think the last paragraph needs some clarification. You do not need to buy a tool for process development, but some tools will be required for the implementation of those processes. For example, almost all software projects will need tools for change tracking and version control processes.
I work in a similar environment: CMMI level 5 using DOORS (requirements management), ClearQuest (bug/change tracking), and ClearCase (code versioning). Personally, I don't like any of these tools. They're slow, expensive, and generally a pain to use but they get the job done. There are open source alternatives and, although I have not used these myself, I hear they are faster, easier to use, and cheaper (free). For code version control there is Git, CVS, SVN, etc. For change tracking: bugzilla. For requirements management, any database software should do. Our process documentation is written in Word documents and posted to an internal website.
And you know they'll be charging extra for the window or the isle seat.
I hear Oceanic has great rates!
A Moon colony would only suck slightly less, because, presumably, we'd ship air and food and something to protect you from cosmic rays, solar flares, and the vacuum of space.
The point of building a colony on the moon is to learn how to survive away from Earth using only local resources. The goal is to make the colony self-sustainable, not to be completely dependent on Earth for all eternity.
But what's the point? Just so you don't have to live here?
Yes, because eventually we will not be able to.
The GP has a good point, albeit poorly stated. Microsoft has the resources to fix these problems quickly, they simply choose not to because fixing their past mistakes would take time away from producing their next cash cow. No, they don't need to fully patch the problem immediately. But they do need to pass the information about the vulnerability along to anyone that may be using a system that is affected by it. And if they care about their customers at all, Microsoft should also provide a method to temporarily prevent an attacker from using that vulnerability against them.
Let's try another hypothetical...
You're working your ass off getting a project out the door, that new oil well needs to be drilled ASAP. A vendor of yours comes to you on Friday night with a NEW problem that they think is a big deal; apparently one of the wells that you drilled in the past has broken and is spewing thousands of gallons of oil into the ocean every day. You acknowledge their complaint, file it away and go back to working on what you were working on. Two business days later, you learn that your vendor took out ads in every major publication and website touting what an idiot you are for not "responding" to him, even though you did.
Now, before you say that's comparing apples to oranges, give it some thought. Is this hypothetical really so different from Microsoft's handling of vulnerability reports? Both problems require a prompt response because they could cost people/businesses a lot of money if the problem leads to a loss of data/resources. Both problems exist as a result of companies cutting corners. Both companies responded slowly because a prompt response would hurt their bottom line (short-term anyway).
What Microsoft should do with this and all other vulnerability reports is allocate as many resources as necessary to, at the very least, find a way for people to shore-up/disable the affected services, systems, etc. then promptly notify the world of both the problem and a temporary solution even if that temporary solution is just to turn the entire system off.
What Microsoft should not do is keep the information from the public until they release a patch. Just because one guy filed a bug report, it does not mean he is the only guy who is aware of the bug. There could be someone else who not only knows about the bug, but has already written and begun using an exploit for it.
The financial meltdown of 2008 was caused by the subprime mortgage disaster, which was directly *encouraged* by the Federal government through Fanny Mae and the "community reinvestment" requirements.
Why won't this myth die? CRA was not the cause of the sub-prime mortgage disaster.
As the University of Michigan's Michael Barr points out, half of sub-prime loans came from those mortgage companies beyond the reach of CRA. A further 25 to 30 percent came from bank subsidiaries and affiliates, which come under CRA to varying degrees but not as fully as banks themselves. (With affiliates, banks can choose whether to count the loans.) Perhaps one in four sub-prime loans were made by the institutions fully governed by CRA.
Janet Yellen, president of the San Francisco Federal Reserve, offers the killer statistic: Independent mortgage companies, which are not covered by CRA, made high-priced loans at more than twice the rate of the banks and thrifts.
You're right about Fannie and Freddie. They did contribute to the problem, although the problems there were actually due to poor policies: investments in sub-prime mortgages should have been regulated, HUD's affordable housing goal increases ignored reality, etc.
Quite frankly, PS3 on the Linux was useless
(Assuming you meant Linux on the PS3)
Many, including the US Air Force would beg to differ.
You, sir, are and idiot
Oh, the irony...
*slow clap*
Bravo, Mr. Beck. Bravo...
I agree. One of the greatest advantages of the new system is that it increases the amount of available routes through Class A airspace (where mostly commercial airliners hang out). It does this by increasing altitude measurement accuracy and reporting frequency. This allows the FAA to cut separation distance minimums in half, doubling the number of routes through Class A airspace. It also allows direct routing (you don't have to follow airways over VORs anymore). This further increases the amount of airspace available to commercial aircraft and allows for shorter flights, which cuts the airlines' fuel costs.
With all of the advantages that this new system provides for commercial traffic, the airlines have the most to gain. Why should private pilots have to shoulder the burden of upgrading the system?
Just to clarify, most transponders in use today do transmit pressure altitude. This is required when flying into Class A, B, or C airspace or into a mode C veil (which usually surrounds Class B airports).
That's interesting. This almost sounds like a roundabout way of implementing the public option. Assuming the "uninsured fee" goes toward national health care costs, it's basically cheap health insurance for everyone.
They'll learn just how expendable they are, and how easy it is to outsource their skills from a nation of cheaper labour.
Actually, they'll see how poorly the upgrades were handled and realize it's easier to throw out the resulting monstrosity and start over than try to maintain it.
I second this. About a year ago my Xbox 360 died. I followed this guide and brought it back to life. It's still running today.
You can thaw it out now.
I followed this guide about a year ago when my Xbox 360 died. This brought it back to life and it's still going strong today.
The problem with this approach is that insurance (not just health insurance, but insurance in general) is not designed to handle relatively small payments that are known to occur on a regular basis. The purpose of insurance is to guard against very expensive problems that have a low risk of occurrence. The idea is that many people pay a relatively small premium and all of that money is pooled together to pay for the small subgroup of people that are unfortunate enough to run into the problem that the insurance policy guards against.
This model breaks down when the chance of the problem occurring is very high. In the case of regular viral vaccinations, the risk of occurrence is 100%. This means that your premium would have to be equal to the cost of your vaccination plus administrative costs for the insurance policy. So you're already paying more for your vaccination just by using insurance to pay for it.
If health care prices were brought down to a reasonable level, very simple procedures like vaccinations would probably cost about as much as the co-pay that most people are already paying to their health insurance company.
My point exactly. We need to bring the cost of health care down to a point where we don't need insurance to cover "maintenance costs."
This is a great example of why I think the current debate over US health care is focused on the wrong issue. The problem is not the cost of health care insurance, the problem is the cost of health care itself. Sure, there are many problems with health insurance, but the question we need to be asking is not "how do we pay for health care?" The question we need to be asking is "why is health care so expensive?"
It is ridiculous that simple things like diagnosing/curing a common disease or setting a broken bone cost as much as they do. It is even more ridiculous that these things are so expensive that we need insurance to pay for them. Bring the cost of health care down and we can save insurance for the uncommon stuff, which should bring the cost of insurance down as a result.
Even worse, maybe they like the current public perception of nuclear power. With people afraid of nuclear power, there is greater opposition when someone tries to build a new nuclear plant which could compete with their plant. Maybe, in that sort of twisted logic, they see fixing the leak as spending money to shoot themselves in the foot.
That is ridiculous for so many reasons I don't even know where to start. Engagement rings are not some sort of "un-fake-able signal of a man's seriousness". If either the man or the woman calls off the wedding for any reason, in many states, legally, the ring is returned to the man.
In some states of the United States, engagement rings are considered "conditional gifts" under the legal rules of property. This is an exception to the general rule that gifts cannot be revoked once properly given. See, for example, the case of Meyer v. Mitnick, 625 N.W.2d 136 (Michigan, 2001), whose ruling found the following reasoning persuasive: "the so-called 'modern trend' holds that because an engagement ring is an inherently conditional gift, once the engagement has been broken, the ring should be returned to the donor. Thus, the question of who broke the engagement and why, or who was 'at fault,' is irrelevant. This is the no-fault line of cases."
And some info on the history of engagement rings. Note that the rings were initially made out of iron (pretty inexpensive).
Romans used iron rings to symbolize strength and permanence, and the Greeks are credited with the initial idea to wear the ring on the fourth finger of the left hand, where the “vena amoris” or vein of love was supposed to connect to the heart.
During the ninth century, Pope Nicolas I endorsed the idea of engagement rings by making a gold ring a betrothal requirement to demonstrate the groom’s wealth and ability to care for a wife. In 1215, Pope Innocent III made a similar declaration though the rings could consist of different metals, including silver and iron, and the rings were meant to be worn during a longer engagement period.
I'll leave the part about how DeBeers controlling the resale market is good for men (or anyone) for someone else to debunk.